TISCO Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A group of 44 appeals have been listed together on the ground that the issues involved in these appeals are identical. After hearing both sides at length on 22 -7 -2010 and today, I find several flaws in the manner of disposal of appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals), in the manner of listing the appeals by the Registry and in the manner of assistance by the Advocate and the DRs. Due to such mishandling at different stages, appeals on truly connected matters got disconnected while appeals on disconnected matters got clubbed together, thus making the present group of appeals a kind of 'remnant appeals" or 'left ever appeals".

(2.) LEARNED Advocate Shri K.J. Singh submits that the original authority has imposed penalties on various parties/persons like TISCO, the employee of TISCO, Consignment Agents of TISCO and Directors/employee of consignment agents of TISCO, registered dealers and connected persons and the manufacturer who has taken credit and their employees and Directors. He has not given findings on the specific role of each party/person in the alleged violations justifying imposition of penalties. Commissioner (Appeals) has also not specifically appreciated the role of each persons on whom penalty has been imposed. Learned Advocate, submits that many of the connected appeals stand disposed of by the Tribunal by way of remand to the original authority and, therefore, he seeks remand of these matters also to the original authority. Learned Advocate relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Aarti Steels Limited reported in, 2008 (89) RLT 235 :, 2009 (239) E.L.T. 51 (Tribunal) by which several appeals were disposed of by setting aside the orders of authorities below and remanding the matter to the original authority for considering the matter afresh in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ranjeev Alloys Ltd.

(3.) LEARNED SDR, relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ranjeev Alloys Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in, 2009 (236) E.L.T. 124 which stands upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana [2009 (247) E.L.T. 27 P& H ], submits that there has been wholesale conspiracy in taking credit without actually receiving the goods. The manufacturing units have not proved that the goods have been received after the Department has brought out several discrepancies in their claim for transportation of goods.